» Articles » PMID: 35534219

Relationships Between Erectile Dysfunction, Prostate Cancer Treatment Type and Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Implantation

Overview
Specialty Urology
Date 2022 May 9
PMID 35534219
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: The prevalence of erectile dysfunction (ED) and the utilization of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) among prostate cancer patients are understudied. The aim of the study was to examine the relationships between ED, prostate cancer treatment type and IPP implantation in a national cohort.

Materials And Methods: We identified a retrospective cohort of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare patients diagnosed with locoregional prostate cancer between 2006 and 2011 and treated with surgery or radiation. Chi-square tests were used to detect significant differences in ED rates as well as use of IPP among the subset with ED. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine factors associated with the use of IPP.

Results: Among 31,233 patients in our cohort, 10,334 (33.1%) received prostatectomy and 20,899 (66.9%) received radiation. ED within 5 years was significantly more common in the prostatectomy group relative to those the radiation group (65.3% vs. 33.8%, p<0.001). In the subset of 13,812 patients with ED, the radiation group had greater median time to ED diagnosis compared to the prostatectomy group (346 vs. 133 days, p<0.001). IPP implantation was more frequent for prostatectomy patients than for radiation patients (3.6% vs. 1.4%, p<0.001). Cancer treatment type, race, and marital status were significantly associated with IPP utilization.

Conclusions: ED is highly prevalent among prostate cancer patients, and IPP implantation is be underutilized. ED rates, time to ED diagnosis and utilization of IPP differed significantly by prostate cancer treatment type.

Citing Articles

State of the science of sexual health among older cancer survivors: an integrative review.

Lee H, Song M J Cancer Surviv. 2024; .

PMID: 38349507 DOI: 10.1007/s11764-024-01541-2.


Comment on: Technological advances in penile implants: past, present, future.

Garcia S, Pena Rodriguez S, Alarcon J Int J Impot Res. 2023; 36(5):545-546.

PMID: 37291230 DOI: 10.1038/s41443-023-00720-6.


Erectile Dysfunction in Pelvic Cancer Survivors and Current Management Options.

Bernal J, Venkatesan K, Martins F J Clin Med. 2023; 12(7).

PMID: 37048780 PMC: 10095222. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12072697.

References
1.
Virag R, Shoukry K, Floresco J, Nollet F, Greco E . Intracavernous self-injection of vasoactive drugs in the treatment of impotence: 8-year experience with 615 cases. J Urol. 1991; 145(2):287-92; discussion 292-3. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)38316-7. View

2.
Miller T . Diagnostic evaluation of erectile dysfunction. Am Fam Physician. 2000; 61(1):95-104, 109-10. View

3.
Potosky A, Davis W, Hoffman R, Stanford J, Stephenson R, Penson D . Five-year outcomes after prostatectomy or radiotherapy for prostate cancer: the prostate cancer outcomes study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004; 96(18):1358-67. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djh259. View

4.
Stanford J, Feng Z, Hamilton A, Gilliland F, Stephenson R, Eley J . Urinary and sexual function after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. JAMA. 2000; 283(3):354-60. DOI: 10.1001/jama.283.3.354. View

5.
Le B, Burnett A . Evolution of penile prosthetic devices. Korean J Urol. 2015; 56(3):179-86. PMC: 4355428. DOI: 10.4111/kju.2015.56.3.179. View